SB 933 
.R38 

Copy 1 the Control of Cereal-and Forage 

Crop Pests 

Copyright, 1920, by Fred Reinlein, 1751 Derby Street, 
Portland, Oregon. 

Circular No. 157 February 4, 1920 

IN AS much as the European corn borer has become well 
established in certain parts of Massachusetts and New 
York, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture is trying 
to arouse the public to the need of drastic action towards 
''control and extermination" of this serious pest, and at the 
same time has virtually no other means of "control and ex- 
termination" to offer than destruction of the very large 
number of food plants this pest inhabits during its period of 
rest, this is a good time to throw a little light on how the 
Bureau of Entomology proposes to control certain other im- 
portant insect pests, especially such as affect cereal-and forage 
crops, and also on means of control to accomplished this same 
purpose, as had been described by me during the past 6 years. 
A system of control that is claimed by me to effectively 
control the European corn borer has recently been described 
by me in my Circular No. 156, and the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, who for the past 6 years has done nothing to make 
the U. S. Entomologist do his duty in this matter — admit 
that I am right, or show where I am wrong — was once more 
asked to make the little man attend to his job. 



.^ 



'i'2) 



e^^'i^ 



The •essential features of controlling this new pest will be 
repeated here, chiefly because I shall subsequently show that 
I had similar means described years ago, and because the es- 
sential idea, with modifications, makes possible the effective 
control of a number of other important cereal-and forage 
crop pests. 

The European corn borer is a moth that develops ''at 
least two generations annually'' in Massachusetts. In the 
case of this insect a female moth emerging in the spring, lays 
on the average 350 eggs, and a female of the second brood, 
emerging in July, 550. These eggs are laid in patches of from 
5 to 50 on the underside of the leaves, and the hatching young 
in a few days after feeding upon the surface of the leaves 
enter the plant to develop therein to a moth. 

As for natural means of control, ''very few are destroyed 
by them" (Farm Bui. No. 1046, p. 2). It will readily be 
seen then, that mere destruction, usually by burning, of its 
host plants, which is to include "the stubble and upper part 
of the root," and which host plants include, on suspicion, 
practically every plant of herbaceous growth such as annual 
weeds, is necessarily inadequate, no matter at what cost in 
money and loss of fertility and loss of waterholding power of 
the soil it may be carried out, to prevent the survival of a 
considerable percentage of larvae, and consequently is sure to 
result in heavy loss the following year. 

The means of control devised by me, take advantage of 
the fact that the moths prefer to oviposit on corn bearing a 
tassel, or just coming into the tassel stage. Most of the corn 

— 2 — 



C1A563576 FEB 25 1920 



in Massachusetts reaches the tassel stage by July 1st. The 
first brood of moths oviposits during the 3 or 4 preceding 
weeks. If no corn is. then in tassel, and none but early sweet 
corn is, the moths deposit their eggs upon other plants bearing 
a green seed head. Such plants are then plentiful among 
grasses and weeds. My plan provides for a patch of just such 
grasses or suitable weeds. It is extremely easy to provide 
such a patch, barnyard grass for instance making an excellent 
trap plant. This patch is to be mowed closely, cured and 
baled before any moths are ready to emerge. The less the 
brood was developed at the time of the cutting, the less neces- 
sary will be the baling, since the greater will be the mortality 
because of the drying up of the food supply, while the insect 
is yet immature. Naturally, the less seed heads are allowed 
to be present outside of this patch at ovipositing time through 
mowing them off previously or subsequently to the beginning 
of oviposition, and before the resulting inmature stages can 
sur^^ive in spite of the cutting, the better will be the result. 
We thus control the pest, simply by growing a crop of good 
hay at a stipulated time. 

The second brood of moths emerges during the last week 
of July — 2 to 3 weeks after corn has passed the pollination 
stage. My plan provides for a trap patch of corn sown rather 
thinly for fodder at such time that it will be just coming into 
the tassel stage by this time. This patch will then attract 
most of the moths for oviposition and thus very largely pro- 
tect the ear corn against infestation by the comparatively 
small number of moths that have been allowed to develop on 

— 3 — 



plants other than the trap patch. This corn grown for fod- 
der or silage is carefully utilized during winter which reduces 
the pest without any further fuss and fumble to the minimum 
for spring infestation. 

What is wanted now in the interest of the public weal 
is that the Secretary of Agriculture give the Entomologist a 
da} off from other pressing duties of his office, real or fancied, 
so that he may have time to define what is what in this method 
of controlling what, is "probably the most injurious plant pest 
yet introduced," as described on pages 1 to 11 of my Circular 
No. 156. 

Sucid,entally, the Entomologist has been for 3 years 
wanting to show why such a trap patch of late cotton or corn 
would not concentrate the boUworm or corn ear wcrm into 
hibernating quarters, and by plowing the ground before 
emergence begins in the spring, keep the bulk of the moths 
from emerging in any given locality. 

If the borer finds its way to sections where it can produce 
3 broods, the dates given have to be correspondingly advanced, 
and an extra sowing of corn made to tassel by about August 
20. 

In the South, this insect can produce 4 to 5 generations. 
The dates as given for Massachusetts have then to be still 
further advanced and the use of trap crops, corn or other suit- 
able crops has to be carried on longer in the fall. 

There is every reason to believe that should this pest find 
its way to the cotton belt, it would prove to be a far more 
formidable pest to cotton — under the crude method of control 

__4_ 



advocated at present by the Bureau of Entomology- than 
either the boll weevil or the pink boll worm. In that case 
the first brood of moths can be made to oviposit on a trap 
patch of grasses, while the later broods, on cotton, could not he 
controlled except by the means described by me in my Circular 
No. 152, pp. 1 to 1(), for the control of the boll weevil, the 
boll worm and many other cotton insects, including, as ex- 
plained on pages 33 to 35 of my Circular No. 152 and pages 
12 to IS of mv Circular No. 154, the pink boll worm. This 
method, in substance, consists m using poultry to pick on the 
fallen squares containing juicy grubs such as of the boll 
weevil, and concentrating oviposition of the boll weevil and 
the boll worm in the late summer to a late sown trap patch of 
cotton. 

The European corn borer would readily breed on sugar 
cane. The first brood could be allowed to develop on grasses 
and weeds surrounding the cane field. These grasses and 
weeds would have to be cut at such time, that no adult can 
develop. The subsequent generations can be controlled the 
same as the 4 generations of the sugar can moth borer, de- 
scribed on pages 11 to 16 of my Circular No. 5(). In essence, 
this method of control consists in sowing late corn at in- 
tervals and using it for silage and to trap the insect into 
hibernating quarters. 

There are other important insects that can be similarly 
controlled. One of these is the sorghum midge. 'Tn addition 
to the many varieties of sweet sorghum, the sorghum midge 
is known to infest broom corn, kafir, Johnson grass and milo. 



In one instance the writer," (Mr. W. Harper Dean) "reared 
ri single adult from the common fcxtail grass (Setaria glaucaj 
and Mr. George G. Ainslie has also reared the midge from the 
"'grass Sieglingia sesleroides" (Ent. Bull. 85, ]). 4-A) . 

"In the spring the midge appears with the hrst Johnson grass 
and sorghum, and as this grass heads considerably before the 
cultivated sorghum, it may be said that by the time the latter 
has headed, the midge has become sufficiently abundant on 
the grass to make the first sorghum infestation a neavy one. 
In the latitude of San Antonid, Tex., the first midges to be 
found during the season of 1909, were found actively oviposri- 
ing in Johnson grass on May 14. At this date the neighboring 
sorghum had not headed, and it was not until June 19 that 
the first brood emerged from the sorghum, wdiich puts the date 
of this first infestation at approximately June 5" (p. 53), 
"From what has been said previously in regard to the midge 
in relation to Johnson grass, it is a self-evident fact that this 
grass furnishes the key to the situation fp. 55). "The de- 
struction of Johnson grass 's one of the most vital factors in 
midge control" (p. 58). 

Destroying Johnson grass will not control the midge, be- 
cause the midge could no doubi breed in a great number of 
other grasses if it were deprived of its usual food plant early 
in the season. Take a similar case: The boUweevil from its 
introduction into the United States in 1892 to 191.3, was not 
known to feed and breed on anything but cotton, but evidently 
as the residt of trying to starve it out bv the early destruction 
of all of the plants in the fall it was found feeding in 1913 by 

— 6 — 



Mr. B. R. Coad, of the Bureau of Entomology, on Hibiscus 
syriacus, and actually experimentally reared on this plant by 
him, and partly also on other plants. Thus "by alternating 
food plants "(experimentally, which is less favorable than 
would be the case under field conditions)," it was found that 
the weevils have a wide range of hitherto unsuspected adapti- 
bility" (U. S. Dep. A. Bull. No. 231, p. 3). 

I had shown from this for four years past that with a cot- 
tonfield totally infested by the bollweevil in the early fall, de- 
struction of all of the plants, and, in fact, the mere absence 
of squares suitable for oviposition would force the weevil to 
accustom itself to breed in plants other than cotton, which of 
course would in time render the Bureau's old standby of con- 
trol — early destruction of stalks — entirely inefificient, and make 
control of the weevil all the more difficult, and that therefore 
the only sound principle of control rests in concentrating 
the weevil upon its original and preferred foodplant, and 
attacking it there by having poultry pick on the fallen 
squares and secure adults as described in detail in my Circular 
No. 152, pp. 1 to 16. 

In the case of the sorghum midge the abundant supply of 
Johnson grass always present in the past simply thus far has 
not forced the midge to oviposit on any grass of second 
choice to any great extent. ''Johnson grass being the first to 
head and bloom gives the midge a good start and by the time 
sorghum is headed there is a large brood of midges from the 
grass to infest it" (p. 55). Exactly — if you let them mature on 
it. But my plan provides for a large patch of Johnson grass 

— 7 — 



to be cut before the immature stages therein have sufficiently 
developed to emerge as adults. Of course the trappatch will 
be the more efficient the more the seed heads of Johnson 
grass nearby are made to serve as traps and are finally kept 
down before adults can develop through pasturing or mowing. 
"Johnson grass makes a heavy yield of excellent hay if cut 
before the seeds are formed ..." Farm Bull. No. 509, p. 7). It 
is quite possible to eradicate it in fields planted by itself "with- 
out excessive labor or expense. . . . The only expense is for 
the extra plowing and harrowing and that is more than repaid 
by the additional crop . . ." (p. 7). Also see Farmers' Bulletin 
No. 279 : A method of eradicating Johnson grass. But as 
Johnson grass also occurs in mixture with other grasses and 
weeds where proper shallow plowing and harrowing for eradi- 
cation cannot be employed, if we were to adopt the Bureau's 
plan of controlling the sorghum midge by eradicating the 
Johnson grass, we would have to dig all these scattered root 
stocks up, simply to have new grass sown through seeds pass- 
ing through the stomachs of birds and other animals and to 
find that a large number of other grasses are also capable of 
sustaining the midge. 

That Mr. Dean does not know how to eradicate Johnson 
grass is plain from the following, under heading of Destruction 
of Johnson grass: ". . . It should be burned over whenever 
discovered and such areas plowed in the spring to prevent an 
early crop of heads" (p. 58). The fact is, such plowing prevents 
an early crop of heads all right, but keeps the grass growing 
from year to year" . . . The small isolated patches of the grass 



in the fence corners will carry the species over winter in the 
seed . . ." (p. 581). Exactly. And if these heads were cut 
in the spring before adults can develop and were subsequently 
cut whenever they became nearly old enough to mature a crop 
of adult midges, these same patches would constantly act as 
traps and keep the sorghum clear to that extent. It will be 
readily seen that the best results for a given effort are secured 
by making the trap patch of Johnson grass as far as practicable 
the only oviposition material for the time being. 

There is every reason to believe that it will be possible to 
work out a similar method of trapping for the control of the 
wheat midge. 

Of wheat insects the Hessian fly stands first, with the 
joint worm second. The Hessian fly, on winter wheat, can be 
most easily controlled by providing a trappatch in the falU 
having it sprout at the same time as volunteer wheat. This 
trappatch, and other places where volunteer wheat freely 
occurs, wnll thus attract the bulk of the insects. The main 
crop is sown comparatively late, the date depending primarily 
upon rainfall affecting the early or late emergence of the flies 
in the fall as the case may be, and the development of volun- 
teer wheat. The aim naturally is to have the flies oviposit on 
the trappatch and volunteer wheat while the main crop is 
sprouting. This trappatch and the places where volunteer 
wheat freelv occurs must be plo^^ed under in the late fall or 
anyway not later than in the spring before emergence of 
the flies begins. Thus a field the previous year in wheat may 
be allowed to carry winter wheat up to the time of the begin- 

— 9 — 



ning of emergence of the flies in the spring to be then plowed 
for some crop. This allows of seeding the wheat crop to grass 
or clover in the late winter the year before and gives grazing 
during the fall and early spring when otherwise because of 
insufficient rainfall it might not be possible to secure any 
profitable returns. 

The joint worm, according to official remedies discussed 
in Farmers' Bulletin No. 1006, p. 12, is to be controlled by let 
ting a stubble of about ten inches stand and plowing this down 
deeply during the summer and early fall. With the ground 
usually dry like a brick at this time, this is some job, however 
a tractor might be said to do away with this difficulty. In any 
case this with such a quantity of loose combustible matter 
buried usually will cause this upper layer of soil by breaking 
the capillary attraction at the depth of the plowing, anyway, 
deeply, to dry out like a bone, in that case rendering it unfit 
to grow anything before next spring. Moreover as it is best 
of farm practice to sow wheat to clover and grass in late winter 
and early spring, if this plan is followed we have a crop coming 
on after the wheat is off, where otherwise we have but a pile 
of trouble to bury the stubble. Why not then sow al! the 
wheat fields to clover and grass and then after leaving a stub- 
ble of ten inches, go over with a mower, cutting close to the 
GTornd, fitting the mower wnth an attachment to catch the clip- 
pings. These clippings need not be burned. They could be 
spread on some low ground where the w^ater drains during the 
winter. This excess of moisture coupled with the thawing 
and freezing would kill the larvae or pupae within. The less 

—10— 



cold, the more wet must be the location chosen. Also, if the 
weather be hot and dry as it usually is in mi. 1 summer, ihe 
mere clipping and dryin,s^ of the stubble on the bare gionnd 
for weeks is likely to kill all or most of the larvae. 

A similar case where the Bureau of Entomology as a mjan.; 
of control, recommends the eradication of an early foodplant, 
and where instead the using of that early foodplam for a trap- 
patch turns failure into success is to be found in what is iheir 
solution of the problem of controlling chalcis fly infestation in 
alfalfa seed. This problem and its solution, as given by. the 
Bureau is discussed in Farmers' Bulletin No. *Voi). 

As to food plants: "The cloverseed chalcis-fly confines 
its work entirely to the seeds of cloyer. bur clover and alfalfa 
. . . "(p. 3). *'Mr. F. M. Webster shows the distribution of 
the alfalfa-seed chalcis as probably coyering the entire United 
States" (p. 3). 

The following list of means of control is giyen : "Har- 
vesting severely infested crops "(that is, avoid trying to grow 
a seed cro]))," clearing fence lines and ditch banks, wdnter cul- 
tivation, destroying the screenings, burning fences and 
checkridges, planting clean seeds, cutting the seed crop "(at 
such time as the most possible can be gotten out of it, what- 
ever that may be)," destroying burclover, cleaning the seeds, 
and necessity of organized efforts." 

As for the value of destroying burclover as a means of 
control, you read on page 9: "In some localities bur clover 
grows abundantly and matures its seed pods in early spring. 
The chalcis-flies thus have already completed the development 

—11— 



of an entire generation in the seeds of these plants before the 
alfalfa seed pods have developed in the fields. Under such 
conditions it w^ould be well to destroy the burclover pods by 
burning the fence lines in the spring. This can frequently be 
done after the plants mature and before the alfalfa seed crop 
comes on." 

With all vegetation then in sap, it is up to the Bureau to 
show^ how "it would be well" to try to bui'n the fence lines. 
Palpably what burclover would be growing in fence lines 
would represent only a small part of the total in the vicinity 
of the alfalfa field and burning such plants mixed with green 
ones is out of the question. 

If a trappatch of burclover be sown, this will attract the 
bulk of the flies and if allowed to mature seed it will as stated 
by the Bureau develop an entire generation to later find its 
way to the alfalfa. On the other hand if this burclover be cut 
before the larvae are sufficiently developed as not to be affected 
b)y the drying of this food supply through cutting, this will kill 
them. This, especially if also surrounding volunteer burclover 
be cut, will, necessarily, to a certain extent ,protect the alfalfa. 
But with the blooms and young seeds thus cut, the flies then 
yet emerging from hibernating quarters or from early breed- 
ing places, possibly including white clover, not destroyed 
while in bloom, will oviposit on "clover," probably including 
white clover, then also inviting oviposition, and intermediate 
in time of blooming between burclover and alfalfa, hence to 
protect the alfalfa well, a patch of clover of a kind that is inter- 
mediate in bloom between burclover and alfalfa must also be 

—12— 



handled the same as the burclover. Red clover just fills the 
bill. This clover cut when the alfalfa begins to come well into 
bloom will then serve as a second check and thus reduce in- 
festation of alfalfa to the minimum. 

Not only is this course of thus using a trappatch of clover 
necessary if alfalfa is to be well protected against the chalcis- 
fly, but it also necessary if a clover seed crop is to be protected 
against the clover midge, since such cutting of the trappatch 
destroys the spring brood of the clover midge and leaves the 
next cutting free of infestation, offering a splendid opportunity 
for a heavy seed crop. 

Naturally cases where a crop can be protected by growing' 
a trappatch of the same or a similar plant are comparatively 
rare. Take the case of the smoky cranefly, described in U. S. 
D. A. Ent. Bull. No. 85, part vii. There is a whole family of 
craneflies, comprising several genera and many species, each 
present as adults for a certain period of the year, varying in 
time of emergence from March to October. There are 
aquatic, semiaquatic and terrestrial species. 

As to records of damage, you find among others : 
". . . Dr. S. A. Forbes (IS.S.S) reports a very gen- 
eral and serious outbreak of tipulids (Tipula bicornis) 
in grass and clover meadows throughout southern and central 
Illinois, many pastures ind hayfields being almost completely 
ruined ..." also " . . . Mr. R. W. Doane . . . states that 
thousands of acres of wheat and grasslands and clover fields 
were absolutely striped of verdure" (p. 121). 

The eggs are laid into the ground. ''The larvae, which 

—13— 



often occur in enormous nturibers, as many as 200 having been 
found in an area covering a little over a square foot, feed upon 
the roots of various plants. ... In feeding, these larvae move 
about in the ground quite freely, as is evidenced by the small 
molehill-like ridges they leave in going from plant to plant, 
just under the surface of the ground. They ''(Tipula infus- 
cata (a kind to appear as adults in October)" become full- 
grown about the middle of July, form perpendicular cells about 
three to four inches underground when they pupate (p. 127). 
The pupa then by means of the abdominal spines works its way 
to the surface from which it protrudes two-thirds of its entire 
length" (p. 128). "The adults . . . are about in great numbers 
among the tall, rank grass, clover and weeds, from which they 
rise awkwardly as one approaches, flying but a few yards be- 
fore alighting" (p. 126). 

Natural enemies, at times at least, manifestly do not 
amount to anything, else we vrould not have cases- of nearly 
200 larvae to the square foot. However, the Bureau of En- 
tomology on page 129 gives a list of 86 kinds of birds that, ac- 
cording to the findings of the Bureau of Biological Survey 
feed on Tipulidae or their eggs. Among the larger birds thus 
feeding there are varieties of jays, blackbirds, cukoos, and, one 
kind each of nighthawks, woodpecker, grouse, snipe and gull. 
The inference then simply is that these birds, and other birds, 
under primitive conditions readily hold the pest in check, but 
that with most of the lands given over to agriculture the birds 
do not find even at best the necessary favorable conditions to 
multiply sufficiently to keep the vast areas protected. 

_..14._- 



Uf "remedial and prc\enti\e measures," ihat is, aniiiv:i:ii 
means of control, the Bureau recommends in the case of Tip- 
tila infuscata, "to plow infested sod under in the early fall, and 
either run the fields into corn, potatoes and such crops, ur to 
leave the land fallow the ensuino- summer. Pastures and hav- 
fields, in localities where this species is known to be abuncUmt, 
should be grazed off by the middle of September, and kept so 
until late in November, as the adult flies usually congregate in 
rank growth of grass, clover, weeds, etc., and there lay their 
eggs" (p. 131). 

Thus you have at least one case where the Bureau finds 
it handy to have some rank growth outside of fields and pas- 
tures — growth on waste land as they call it — to serve as ovi- 
position ground, anyway up to late in November. With the 
pastures and hayfields kept thus grazed not man}' insects of 
any kind will stay there — good, bad or neutral — nor will max- 
imum yieds be thus secured or will these pastures and hay- 
fields winter as well or hold water and snow as well as if a 
heavier growth had been left on in the fall. Besides in the 
case of the earlier kind this does does not work at all. Most 
species emerge from March on to past mid-summer and thus 
lay their eggs where they see fit, live as larvae during summer, 
pupate and emerge during the first part of the next season. 
In other words, the Bureau has no remedy for these species at 
all. 

There is, however, a perfectly satisfactory remedy, a remedy 
evolved along the line of the U. S. Entomologist's pet hobby — 
the use of natural enemies in the control of injurious insects — 

—15— 



a remedy I had during the past four years specifically shown to 
be the best means of controlling certain highly important and 
injurious insects. This remedy consists in the judicious and 
extensive use of poultry. 

In the case of the smoky cranefly you have an insect, 
which as adults, spend their their time in low-growing vege- 
tation. While more or less hidden during day time, poultry, if 
given access would stir up many and be able to secure these 
''awkward flies." Also the larvae, through the small ridges 
they leave attract the attention of poultry, they being razorial 
birds. Further, the transformation from pupa to aciult takes 
place with the pupa two-thirds protruding above the surface 
of the ground, and seems to require a day or two at least, thus 
the helpless pupa also becomes exposed to attacks by poultry. 
If a gull, with its large size and rather clumsy habits on land, 
finds it feasible to include the cranefly in one form or the other 
in its menu, why should not poultry do so likewise ? 

It was four years ago in an efifort to evolve a practical 
method of controlling the New Mexico range caterpillar that 
I first came to realize the great economic good that would 
result were the inherent possibilities of poultry as insect de- 
stroyers more fully developed. I pointed out in my Circular 
No. 146 that the New Mexico range caterpillar exists as egg, 
laid in clusters around the stems of weeds and grasses from 
about October 1 till June 1, being thus exposed to attack by 
poultry during all of this long time in this form. As the eggs 
hatch the young caterpillars up till they are about an inch 
long do not carrv anv decidedly poisonous hairs and may be 

-16- 



eaten by poultry in quantity with impunity, in as much as 
robins are known to be able to eat them. 

"Robbins . . . seem to feed only on the smaller larvae. 
The spines of the large larvas are capable of producing much 
greater urticating efTect and are possibly disagreeable to the 
birds on that account Ent. Bull. No. 85, part V, p. 93). Of 
course poultry and other birds are expected, and as a matter of 
fact are, under usual conditions, compelled to eat of these and 
similar caterpillars only as a part of mixed diet. 

The period when the insect is from an inch to two and a 
half inches long is only about six weeks, when it changes to 
pupa, usuall}^ congregating in clusters among the stems .of 
grasses, in which stage it is known to be greedily eaten by 
skunks. Why not then also by poultry? And these pupae 
change to moths that hang during day time in plain view on 
stems of grasses, simply waiting to be picked off by poultry. 
These moths, I had pointed out in my Circular No. 146, taken 
in great quantities alone, might be also injurious because cf 
their hairy covering, but taken with plenty of seeds and, grit, 
as would be the case on the range, it is most likely poultr}^ 
will find them beneficial eating. 

The Bureau of Entomology, instead of aiming to live up to 
its purpose of promoting entomological knowledge in the 
broadest sense, did not want to meet the various pending is- 
sues, but finally, in 1917, told Hon. John E. Raker, member of 
Congress from California, who aimed to get at the true facts, 
that my ''plan of control consists in that turkeys be secured in 
sufficient numbers to destroy the insect. It has been shown, 

—17— 



however, that on account of the poisonous hairs borne by the 
caterpillars, turkeys will not feed upon it." 

When Mr. Raker was told that I had expressly disclaimed 
that poultry would eat the insect in the nearly grown and full 
grown caterpillar stage, and that what the Bureau was wanted 
to define its position on was whether or not poultry will attack 
the insect in all other stages which take up ten months out of 
the twelve in a year, the Bureau declined to do so, but said 
I am wrong on this and all other points I wanted them to de- 
fine their position on. 

That the position is sound is shown by the fact as stated 
mgre in detail on page 12 of my Circular No. 155, from D. A. 
Bulletin No. 124, p. 28, that Mr. Charles Springer of Cimarron, 
N. M., hires a boy to herd an immense flock of turkeys on the 
range, so that they may feed upon the grasshoppers, destroying 
the grama grass and other range grasses. Cimarron is in the 
center of range caterpillar infestation. 

As grasshoppers live during the cool part of the year, 
about seven months, as eggs in che soil, it is plain that the 
turkeys must live during this time on something else and I had 
pointed out for four years past that the egg clusters of the 
range caterpillar on weed stems are that the most easily 
available thing to eat there is. Efforts to have the State Dele- 
gation to Congress from New Mexico do something to have 
the Bureau of Entomology to go into details in these matters 
were futile. Also as explained on pages 7 to 9 of my Circular 
No. 154, the State Biologist-Entomologist of New Mexico out- 
right claimed he wanted to be shown that the use of poultry 

—18— 



is practical, said that the whole matter was in the hands of the 
Bureau of Entomology and that he considered their proposed 
plan of control — relying on the work of parasitic insects to be 
better. In practice, apparently, we find Mr. Springer finds my 
plan pays, and pays big 

Parasitic insects are not under the control of man. All 
that man can do is to introduce st:c hinsec,ts. Naturally, when a 
foreign, injurious insect is introduced without the parasites 
that keep it in check at home, the introduction of such para- 
sites is highly beneficial and such action is a simple matter of 
common sense. But such parasites would become extinct were 
not their host or hosts be kept from becoming extinct. 

Among other points at issue Mr. Raker had also asked 
them to define their position in regard to my method of con- 
trolling the bollweevil. I had pointed out, that inasmuch as 
the bollweevil is adapting itself to go without cotton for a 
long time and feeding and breeding in plants related to cotton, 
apparently as the result of the Bureau's plan of control by try- 
ing to starve it out by destroying the stalks as early in the 
fall as no more cotton can be produced because of the ravages 
of the pest, if the weevil be thus forced to adapt itself to new 
food plants, it would be indefinitely more difficult to control it 
on cotton, at least, if restricced to the means of control the 
Bureau has to offer, since it could breed then earlier in the 
spring through breeding now on other plants, aggravating 
subsequent infestation of cotton and could also breed later in 
the fall on plants other than cotton, causing a heavier sur- 
vival than if it were confined to cotton ar> a food plant and 

-19— 



cotton had been left standing till frost thus finally destroying 
all of what value there originally was in early destruction of 
the plants as a means of control. 

My plan of control provides for an occasional patrol of 
the surroundings of the cottonfields in the spring by poultry 
for weevils, and of course also other insects hibernating out- 
side and working into the field, it provides for the occasional 
examination of these borders and the edges of the field by 
poultry for weevils and giving poultry the run of the field as 
squares would begin to fall, the claim being made that poultry 
would thus both secure adults and pick on fallen infested 
squares each representing a juicy grub; it further provided 
for leaving in the center of the field a patch about the hun- 
dredth part of the whole to be planted late to cotton, the ob- 
ject being to concentrate the adults in the latter part of the 
growing season to the abundant squares there produced and,, 
by feeding poultry a little grain there, keep them sufficiently 
employed to keep down the number of the adults and the 
grubs in fallen squares, resulting in absolute control of the 
bollweevil. But Mr. Raker was told my plan consists in that 
chickens be provided in sufficient numbers to destroy all or 
most of the weevils as soon as they made their way into the 
fields. 

We were then at war and, in my opinion, if any one thing 
agricultural was more essential than another to prosecute it, 
it was an abundant supply of cotton and, as part of doing my 
bit, I descrbed in detail my system of control in comparison 
with the Bureau's plan on pages 1 to 16 of my Circular No. 

—20-- 



152. The Secretary of Agriculture claimed his department 
was putting forth every pound of its strength to win the war, 
but they were deaf to any request on my part to either admit 
that I am right or show what is wrong. 

As the Argentine ant is spreading rapidly over the South- 
ern States, the Bureau had been invited by Mr. Raker to define 
its position, and they did it in this way: ''The Argentine ant 
is an insect that makes its nests in buildings . . . Mr. Rein- 
lein's plan is to use a plumber's torch to drive the ants, which 
he believes will carry their eggs and larvae with them into the 
open, where it will be devoured by poultry." Every word is a 
lie. The natural home of the Argentine ant is outside. In- 
vasion of houses takes place chiefly during the periods of 
scarcity of food outside, and they can be easily killed or driven 
away inside by the use of poisoned sweets, the more quick act- 
ing the better, I claim, which is also contrary to the teaching; 
of the Bureau. Slow-acting poison will kill a larger number 
before the ants get wise, and leave for more healthy surround- 
ings, which is outside where, under my plan, poultry can be 
made to attack them. These ants prefer the excretions of 
aphids and coccids to all other food, and spend much of their 
time fostering these injurious insects and protecting them 
against their natural enemies. I never advised the use of a 
torch against this ant in buildings of any kind including green- 
houses. Outside, poultry given the chance in quantity, so that 
they can tackle the big undertaking, will subdue them, since the 
nests of the ants in summer are very shallow, merely deep 
enough to exclude light and water. I had pointed out, hcnv- 

—21— 



ever, that poultry can be helped in getting a start by using a 
suitable hot air blast torch, something' of the kind shown on 
last page, not a plumber's torch. The vibrations given forth 
by the torch will drive the ants out of their nests, together 
with the eggs, larvae and pupae. 

To refresh the Entomologist's memory of what his assistants 
have found in this matter, I quote: "In case of danger the 
workers' first instinct appears to be to remo\'e tlie young 
(eggs, larvae, pupae) to a place of safety and they rearily 
sacrifice their own lives in order to accomplish this" (Een. 
Bull. No. 122, p. 40). 

I had shown for the past four years that inasmuch as 
Louisiana is the original breeding ground of this a-it m this 
county, and this ant very greatly increases the numbers of the 
mealy bug on sugar cane, and the Bureau of Entomology has 
no tangible means of control at all against the ant on sugar 
cane or growing crops in general, the use of poultry is the 
only available solution of the problem. Every insect thus 
eaten not only means food saved for man, but also nutans 
poultry produced. 

In the control of insects affecting cereal-and forage crops 
poultry grown on an extensive scale has a very wide range of 
usefulness. This point is pretty well discussed on pages S to 
15 of my Circular No. 155. I had shown as far back as mv 
Circular No. 147 that there is no better way to control tiie 
Rocky Mountain locust at large than by maintaining flocks of 
poultry to patrol the large stretches of low-priced and usually 
iionagricultural land, also subsequently pointed out the possi- 

00 



bilities of poultry in the control of m^iny highly injurious tim- 
ber insects, including the gipsy and brown tail moth of New 
England. 

There is another class of insects affecting cereal and forage 
crops made up of sucking insects. Of these the spring grain 
aphis is a good representative. It is now well understood that 
if nothing is done in the southern-most points where this pest 
starts in the spring, it does its greatest damage by producing 
there a progeny that spreads in vast numbers to the North. 
As was pointed out by me in detail in my Circular No. 144, 
pp. 12 and 13, the Bureau has nothing in the way of direct con- 
trol other, than plowing infested patches of fields under 
spreading straw over the patches affecteed and burning it, or 
use a 10 per cent kerosene emulsion that kills admittedly only 
about 50 per cent, according to the Bureau's claims, at a cost, 
years ago, of $4.00 per acre. None of these means of control is 
satisfactory. 

I had shown as far back as 21 years ago that for sucking 
insects there is nothing more feasible as a means ot control 
than the use of heat by a gasoline torch, and in my Circulars 
No. 140, 141, 147 and subsequent Circulars how torch outfits 
might be constructed that furnish a blast for sucking insects 
on any kind of vegetation. In the case of the grain aphis, for 
instance, some such wheeled frame as that of a hayrake could 
be fitted with a tank holdiing gasoline and having any desired 
number of leads to blow a hot air blast through the grain 
plants. An automobile truck is better. Morevover, I pointed 
out as far as 21 years ago that such a blast also destroys the 

—23— 



spores of fungi that may be on a plant. This use of a blast thus 
offers the only feasible means to attack fungus diseases on a 
growing grain and forage crop. The Bureau of Plant Industry 
was wanted all along to investigate this. 

I had shown in my Circular No. 147 how these same fit- 
tings could be used to help make up an outfit applymg a hot 
air blast too tall trees. Thus, for instance, we now have the for 
pearthrips seriously threatening the orchard industry. The 
use of a hot air blast is moreover not only feasible against the 
adults of the pearthrips as they appear at the bloommg time, 
but also for the destruction of the larvae several weeks later. 
These, by being given a slight licking, drop to the ground, 
where a licking at close range kills them. This matter is fully 
explained in my Circular No. 147, pp. 8 to 13. 

However, during the past 30 years certain other sucking 
insects have come into prominence as plant pests in general 
and fruit-and seed pests in particular. The most important 
of these are found in the group of bugs known as stink bugs." 
Their increase in damage is traceable to bringing large tracts 
of pasture lands under cultivation, with the consequent in- 
crease in succulent food supply and the incident curtailment 
of the breeding places of birds, probably the most important 
natural enemies of theirs. Of these bugs only two have thus 
far done great damage, while others may do so at any time if 
not checked by suitable means of control. 

The two bugs in question are the Mexican conchuela 
(Pentatoma ligata) and the grain bug (Pentatoma) Chloroch- 
roa sayi). The first of these, with reference made to the grain 

—24— 



bug, is described in Entomology Bulletin No. 64, part I, 1911, 
and their habits were discussed and, better means of control 
than given by the Bureau were pointed out by me on pages 
1 to 16 of my Circular No. 140, 1914. 

Of the two pests the grain bug was the first to come to 
notice with a record of having destroyed in 1895 40 acres of 
peas and two acres of lima beans in Reeves County, Tex. 
(Ent. Bull. 65, p. 2), but subsequently the conchuela attracted 
the more attention of the two. The grain bug has recently 
been described in U. S. D. A. Bulletin No. 779. 

In making tests to control the conchuela Dr. A. W. Mor- 
rill, the agent of the Bureau of Entomology making the tests, 
also incidentally made use of a gasoline torch After saying 
that the bugs had in a certain test case in Mexico, for the time 
being congregated in a vineyard of about 10 acres, and that 
each cluster of grapes was attacked by several bugs, and that 
the maximum number noted on a single cluster was 25, he says 
the grapes were picked by the owner without consultation with 
him. "This step was, how^ever, inadvisable, since the fruit, 
which was of comparatively small value, would have served 
as a trap at which the bugs could have been easily destroyed 
when so thickly concentrated. As it was, the bugs gathered 
in groups of hundreds on the trellis posts and on the vines, 
principally at the forks, where they were destroyed partly by 
spraying and partly by the use of a gasoline blast-torch. The 
last mentioned method, while effective in its destruction of the 
pest, injured the vines to a certain extent in nearly all cases." 
(p. 7.) 

—25— 



Admittedly the grapes were picked prematurely. If 
sprayed, this quite likely interferred with their eating quali- 
ties. The expenses, I pointed out in my Circular No. I'-iU, p. H, 
were many times that of using the torch. I also pointed out 
that there was no need to injure the vines or fruit, if present, 
since the application of heat could have been made lighter, but 
be made repeatedly. These bugs, moreover, readily drop dur- 
ing the cool part of the day. The application could have been 
given during the night, or anyway early or late in the day 
when the dew is on, with the bugs sluggish and more liable to 
drop, to be killed at the ground at close range. 

Alfalfa is given by Dr. Morrill as the crop the conchuelas 
are most likely to congregate on in largest numbers in the 
spring, and he points out that with no means of control prac- 
ticed, the bugs will multiply there unchecked. As a means of 
control, he suggests leaving a border of alfalfa all around at 
cutting time, on which the immature forms will congregate, 
to be killed by kerosene emulsion. This, of course, is awfully 
expensive on such a bulky crop ; also may make this alfalfa 
nearly or entirely unfit for feed. The use of a knapsack torch, 
as shown on last page, or a mounted outfit having several 
burners, would be much better. Moreover, the adults will not 
stay there, not only because other crops will oi¥er as good or 
better food, but also because this permits of a much more free 
distribution of their eggs. 

Thus is the case cited : ''Shortly after the 10th of July, 
coincident with the cutting of the alfalfa, the bugs were no- 
ticed on the fruit of these (peach) trees, which was just be- 

—26— 



ginning to ripen. The trees soon became very heavily in- 
fected, and on July 20 it was not uncommon to observe from 
10 to 15 on a single peach, and in one instance 20 were 
counted. . . . (E. B. No. 64, p. 6.) For control on peaches 
Dir. Morrill recommends fumigating the trees with tobacco 
under tents, since "jarring is likely to shake off the fruit, and 
many of the bugs will escape by flying." The aim of this 
fumigation is not to kill the insects, for tobacco smoke does 
not kill them. 'Tt stupifies them, causes them to fall to the 
ground, where they can be easily and quickly killed" (p. 14). 
This, be it understood, is merely a proposed means of con- 
trol. The U. S. Entomologist is not anxious to have it made 
clear that this is merely dishing up a theory. In practice it is 
well known that peach foliage is very sensitive to fumigation, 
especially during daytime, when the foliage is dry, and the 
smoke is then especially likely to cause the fruit to drop pre- 
maturely. Even during daytime, when the ground under the 
trees is "neat as a pin," there will be trouble finding the 
dropped bugs to be killed, supposedly by crushing with the 
foot. Suppose you have 100 trees to fumigate — and the fumi- 
gating must be done, usually, repeatedly — how many tents 
will you need to have a ghost of show to kill any appreciable 
part of the whole? Then again, these bugs may attack vegeta- 
tion, wild or cultivated, too tall to be covered by a tent, or at- 
tack shrubbery and plants growing wild, where the use of a 
tent is not feasible, aside from the cost, thus multiplying un- 
checked. 

On pages 13 and 14 of my Circular No. 140, I pointed out 

—27— 



that the use of a torch of some such type as shown on last page^ 
is the most feasible means of control to clear vegetation of ail 
kinds. The particular type of torch shown can be hooked from 
branch to branch in a tree, thus enabling the operator to treat 
tall trees after removing the shoulder straps. However, for 
tall vegetation on a large scale, such as commercial orchards,. 
I pointed out, on pages 10 to 14 of my Circular No. 147, some 
torch outfits with a tank mounted high on a wagon and hav- 
ing 4 leads, which thus permits of having one of two men lick 
the side of a row each ; the bugs, during the cool part of the 
day will drop, to be killed by a licking at close range on the 
ground by the two other men. As far as possible, of course, it 
is better in the case of these bugs, to use some specially attrac- 
tive trap crop, such as grain sown in rows at such time as to 
head just then and attract the bugs. 

For control on alfalfa, Dr. Morrill suggests the construc- 
tion of a hopperdozer on page 13. But the insects are either 
liable to drop off or to fly off when disturbed by a machine. I 
had pointed out in my Circular No. 140, p. 3, as a better way 
that some high-wheeled cart could be fitted with a tank to feed 
several burners to lick the field over. But I shall later show 
that giving poultry, on a large scale, the run of the field, is far 
the best all-around means of control on alfalfa. 

According to observations made by the Bureau at Bar- 
stow, in West Texas, in 1905, the conchuelas were most plenti- 
ful on Milomaize during the first week in August, as many as 
25 of the insects frequently being noted on a single seedhead 
(p. 5). Evidently a tank mounted on some light motor truck 

—28— 



to supply several gasoline burners with hose and pipe to take, 
say 4 rows at a sweep, involving the use of 5 persons, would 
make quick work. If this Milomaize were rolled down so that 
poultry could pick the bugs ofif, this Avould be the most advan- 
tageous way. Evidently what is wanted is some s-uitable trap 
crop that would concentrate the bugs as they leave the alfalfa, 
and where the seedheads are low enough that poultry can 
readily get at the bugs. Strips of dwarf millet, sown at inter- 
vals so as to have some of it heading in succession during the 
season, would probably be an excellent trap crop of this kind. 
Such a course is especially advantageous where attractive 
fruit, such as peaches or grapes, is to be protected. 

"The principal natural food plants of the conchuela are 
the mesquite and related leguminous plants, the beans being 
the object of attack" (p. 8) "under conditions in Western 
Texas . . . with the mesquite-covered surrounding districts 
as a stronghold, these insects probably will become established 
in the alfalfa fields each year . . ." (p.l"?). This is a hon- 
est admission that it is at least doubtful that much can be ac- 
complished by ". . . destruction of weeds in the fall and 
otherwise hindering the successful hibernation . . ." (p. 11). 
As these bugs hibernate mostly under trash on the ground, 
giving poultry the run of the surroundings of the fields is 
manifestly the most feasible means of control at this period of 
the year. 

The grainbug seems to be hardiier than the conchuela, 
having been reported from as far north as Montana and East- 
ern Idaho, indicating that the insect can stand much cold, if 

—29- 



the precipitation is limited. It does not occur along the giuf 
coast of Texas, which would indicate that in a territory wiii. 
a mild winter but a high rainfall, it is held in check in summer 
by fungus diseases. The insect appears to be at present most 
troublesome, per capita wealth, in New Mexico. The insect 
occurs in Eastern and Western Washington, and Northern 
Oregon, indicating that a mild, wet winter does not hurt it. 

''The vital damage is caused by the piercing of the newly- 
formed heads of cereals and the feeding on the liquid contents, 
by which the formation of the grain is prevented, or its weight 
greatly reduced" (U. S. D. A. Bulletin 779, p. 1). Just a few 
samples: ". . . in May, 1903, one farmer in Arizona wrote 
that there was an average of about 10 bugs to each head of 
barley in his 40-acre field . . ." (p. 2) "In July, 191o, a cor- 
respondent wrote from Cloudcroft, N. Mex., that the grainbu.^ 
had ruined 13 acres of rye on his ranch . . ." (p. 3). ''Mr. H. 
E. Smith records that at Roswell, N. Mex., in 1913, at leai^t 
two-thirds of the barley heads were ruined in a field that nor- 
mally would yield from 40 to 60 bushels per acre. At Porters- 
ville, Texas, in 1913, the wheat in a 150-acre field which prom- 
ised a yield of from 50 to 60 bushels, threshed only 22 bushels 
of very inferior grain per acre. ... In one instance . . . 
a carload of oats averaged only 18 pounds per bushel." 

The insect is well established in ITah and Colorado, in 
Colorado among many other points reaching an altitude of 
9,300 feet at Silverton. No reason, then, why it should not 
find favorable conditions to exist permanently in Oklahoma, 
Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Wyoming, Tennessee and Ken • 

—30— 



tucky, agricultural states supposed to be now free. Conditions 
for getting established seem right, also, in other states now 
free as long as the winters are comparatively mild and the 
sinnmers rather dry, hence the need of effective means of con- 
trol. 

The foodplants, mentioned in U. S. D. A. Bulletin 779, p. 
4, include wheat, barley, rye, oats, milomaize, kaffir corn, cot- 
ton, buckwheat, peas, beans, cabbage, tomato, lettuce, Russian 
thistle, mallow, sheepweed and many others, showing the in- 
sect to be able to feed upon plants far apart botanically. The 
list there given fails to specify two important food plants, 
namely, alfalfa and mesquite. The insect produces 4 genera- 
tions in such locations as the Imperial Valley, in California, to 
o generations or less in its northern range. 

The fact that the grainbug has the mallow (Malva parvi- 
flora) for one of its original foodplants, indicates that this pest, 
in cotton fields, is able to become a first class pest, and prob- 
ably is so already in the Imperial Valley, judging from what 
the U. S. Entomologist says in his report for 1018, p. 11 "Other 
v/ork on cotton insects (other than the boll weevil) has been 
carried on at . . . El Centre, Cal., the recent developments 
of cotton in the last locality, in the Imperial Valley, necessi- 
tating careful watch for cotton pests." 

Of course, it is not necessary to "watch for cotton pests" 
after once there "were developments." But it is up to the 
Entomologist to carefully watch whether there are not better 
means of control than he is now dishing up. If it is not his 

—31— 



business to also watch what I am dishing up, I want to be 
shown. 

The conchuela is ah'eady officiall}^ admitted to be a first 
class pest of cotton. My plan of controlling the cotton boll- 
weevil, and also the boUworm, provides for the use of poultry 
the year around, and includes the use of a trappatch of late- 
sown cotton. These plants in the latter part of the season, be- 
cause of their succulency, concentrate the weevils, and will 
also concentrate the conchuela and allied bugs, where poultry 
can pick them off. This, then, usually obviates the need, of 
attacking the bugs on the older plants with a hotairblast torch. 

Much is said on pages 28 to 32, about natural enemies. 
The cold fact is, the pest has persistently, rapidly increased, in 
spite of them, calling thus for more efficient means of control 
by man. The means of artificial control given on pages 32 and 
33 are all impracticable. 

''The obvious method for controlling the grain buk is the 
destruction of their adults when they are concentrated in their 
hibernating quarters. This is best accomplished in the late 
autumn, during the winter or in the early spring by plowing 
under or burning all weeds and rubbish in and about culti- 
vated fields ... In many instances, however, the grain bug 
adults migrate -from considerable distances, and this circum- 
stance necessitates a systematic clean-up community campaign 
in badly infested areas . . ." (p. 32), 

Nothing doing, and for several reasons : Dr. A. W. Mor- 
rill admits that mesquite is a stronghold to the conchuela. 
Why not, then, such and similar growth also to the grain bug? 

—3.- — 



Where the flight of insects to hibernation quarters has been 
carefully studied, as it has been, for instance, in the case of the 
bollweevil, an insect normally not much given to flying, it has 
been found that specially suitable hibernation quarters, such 
as woods, exert influence to distances of miles, hence mere 
destruction in and about the cotton fields will not amount to 
very much. In the majority of cases the fields affected by the 
grain bug are surrounded by land that is not and usually can- 
not be farmed. Were the hibernation quarters, not covered by 
shrubby growth, as far as possible be plowed us, this would 
destroy the natural and usually at best rather scanty cover of 
vegetation, consisting mostly of native drouth resisting 
grasses. It has never soaked into the thick skulls of the En- 
tomologist and such of his men as are willing to side with him 
in saying I am wrong on every point, that nature abhors bare 
ground, and covers it with such vegetation as is suitable, called 
usually weeds. In truth these plants try to remedy the harm 
done by man in destroAang the better plants that formed the 
original covering, and wdiich are more slow in establishing 
themselves than the plants called weeds. The lands aft'ected 
at present by the bugs in question are mostly grazing lands, 
cultivated fields being operated either under irrigation or dry- 
farming methods. If the range has been kept grazed too close 
by overstocking, this also in a lesser degree than plowing and 
burning, superinduces the establishment of less desirable 
plants. Thus in reference to sheep w^eed (snakeweed, 
Gutierrezia) you read on page 23 of U. S. D. A. Bulletin No. 
211: Factors afl:'ecting range management in New Mexico: 'Tn 

—33— 



response to the often-repeated question of how to get rid of the 
snake weed, there is but one method economically possible^ 
and that is to give the grama grass a chance and it will crowd 
out the snake weed." In reference to the Russian thistle, you 
read on page 24: '*. . . Ordinarily it does not seem to be able 
to crowd out the native grasses, but in the dry-farming areas, 
where the sod has been broken or the land deserted for any 
reason, it usually takes the ground completely. It also takes 
badly overstocked places on the range, especially where sheep 
have been held too long. Whether the native grasses will be 
able to crowd their way back into such areas or not, still re- 
mains to be seen. If they are not, then the importance of this 
nest is increased many times." . . . "Whatever may be said 
of the undesirability of weeds on a range, there is one thing to 
be said in their favor. Any vegetable covering in an arid re- 
gion is better than none, since such a covering prevents, to 
some degree the removal of the soil." . . . "To the observer 
from a humid climate perhaps no one characteristic of the arid 
regions of the Southwest is so startling as the evidence on all 
sides as the forceful action of water as an erosive agent. And 
this in a land where water is the one thing that is everywhere 
lacking." . . . "showers are mostly torrential in character." 
. . "Let such a doAvnpour occur on Avhat seems to be a fiat 
plain, and in a few minutes the loAver levels are flooded, and 
the roadbed of any obstructing railroad is apt to suffer severely 
. . . no one factor is so eiTicacious in producing erosion on 
the arid grazing lands as the mo're or less complete removal of 
their already scanty cover of plants by overstocking it . . ." 

—34— 



(p. •^5). Yes, except, of course, the plowing up or burning 
over, as recommended year in and year out by the learned 
men of the Bureau of Entomology. 

The grain bug, hibernating as it does largely in shrubby 
growth needed as a soil covering, can be effectively fought dur- 
ing hibernation by encouraging the expanse of the poultry in- 
dustry. "The hibernating adults . . . generally are found 
directly underneath the material composing their hibernating 
quarters or in loose material on the surface of the ground" 
- . . (U. S. D. A. Bulletin, 779, p. 27). Thus poultry will 
find them just where they look for other food, both animal and 
vegetable. 

''The adults of the grain bug are verv numerous locally 
during the time of their emergence from hibernation in April 
and May. In one instance 30 adults were found under a single 
*'cow chip" about 6 inches square; and a total of 175 adults 
were found under the dead weeds along a 20-foot space of an 
irrigation ditch" . . . "A half groAvn chicken devoured 8 
adults during a single day when placed in a large outdoor cage 
wdth these insects. It has been commonly reported by farmers 
that a diet of grain bugs often kills barnyard fowls, but these 
reports have not been verified" (p. 32). 

Poultry are not expected to live on a diet of grain bugs, or 
of range caterpillars when in the larval stage, or any other 
one animal food, or a mixture of them, since that is clearly 
contrary to their nature, but they normally want a mixed diet, 
animal, vegetable and mineral. Cage a man without food, ex- 
cept horseradish, and he will live longer if he leaves the horse- 

—35— 



radish alone. But give him water to drink, and meat and other 
food that is not flavored, and he will w^ant to eat of the hojse 
radish in preference to eating his food unflavored. A chicken 
forced to be without food excepting grain Inigs might iwc 
longer by leaving them alone, but taken with other food ,:iu . 
including grit, the grain bugs can be expected to form a heaUli- 
ful part of the whole. 

"Early in the season the immature stages of the first gen- 
eration of the grain bug are concentrated on the tender plants 
of Russian thistle and other native plants growing in the waste 
areas of cultivated fields. At this time the multiplication, of 
the species may be restricted greatly by sprayin.a these areas 
with a strong insecticide or chemical, thus killing insects and 
other obnoxious food plants in one operation" (p. 32). 

Such a plan is not at all practicable or desirable. A chem- 
ical that would destroy the food plants would also injuriously 
act upon the soil, and thus either prevent the growth of all 
plants, or permit only those of poorest food value to gain a 
foothold. Moreover, the insects emerge irregularly, hL^nce 
could not be killed all in one application, with the result that 
those emerging subsequently would be forced to congregate 
upon the cultivated crops. But the large areas that would 
have to be treated and the comparatively small yield usually 
secured on fields in arid regions render the incidental expense 
utterly prohibitive. On the other hand, poultry given the run 
will keep on picking these insects off right along, with other 
kinds. Besides, if natural enemies are to be a factor at all, 
they must have a place to hibernate and breed. 

—26— 



"Hand picking . . . may prove practical" . . . (p. 3). 
Assuming any hand work is practicable, which in general it 
decidedly is not, the use of a hot air blast would do this work 
many times faster. A number of torches operated from a 
vehicle work relatively still faster, with less damage to the 
crop. But with poultry kept going the year around, they will 
usually take care of the bugs as a matter of course. 

'*It has often been suggested that a hopperdozer might 
be employed to collect the adults and nymphs of the grain bug 
while they are feeding on the heads of the grain. An opera- 
tion of this kind, how^ever, would be complicated by the fact 
that the insects generally drop to the ground when closely 
approached. Then, too, at the time when most of the injury 
by the grain bug occurs, the condition of the grain is such that 
the passage of any collecting machine would result in con- 
siderable damage to the crop" (p. 33). 'Tn grain fields the 
feeding is confined to medium sized and rapidly growing heads 
of immature seed. After the grain reaches the 'Plough" stage 
the insect ceases to feed upon it . . ." (p. 23). "The grain 
bug adults are very conspicuous objects in the field, owing to 
their large size and tendency to seek the upper part of each 
plant when feeding or resting on the grain heads. On clear 
days ... at least 95 per cent of the adults present in the 
vicinity may be seen without moving any part of the plants. 
When disturbed, however, most of the adults immediately 
drop to the ground and seek cover" (p. 24). 

All this shows that the most feasible way to attack the 
grain bug on grain consists in the use of poultry on an ample 

—Z1— 



scale to handle the work, and do this the year around. To 
have poultry thus available in a paying way it is necessary to 
give poultry the run of the surroundings of the fields, that they 
may be able to pick up most of their sustenance in the winter, 
a matter that may have to be regulated by law, since these 
surrounding lands may belong to somebody else. This kept 
up in the spring and, if necessary, during the summer, as long 
as bugs in quantity feed on the forming heads, holds the pest 
in check. 

When the grain crops are harvested the bugs go to other 
food plants then forming heads, such as late grain, milomaize 
and volunteer grain. As near as feasible, poultry can be used 
to pick them off. The use of a gasoline outfit on a truck is 
naturally far the most feasible artificial means of control where 
poultry^ cannot reach them. With steps taken to have tra]) 
crops heading up till frost, vvdiere poultry can get at them, this 
will greatly decrease their chances for damage the following 
year. Probably some suitable variety of millet, sown at suc- 
cessive periods, will answer well for traps. The aim must be 
to concentrate the bugs upon low growing vegetation for at- 
tack by poultry or the torch, and thus keep tall vegetation, 
such as peach trees or grapes, free of them. 

Indications are strong that this pest will rapidly become 
of great importance in California — unless soon checked by 
proper measures, as here outlined — the mild winters, the dry 
summers and great variety of food supply being specially fa- 
vorable to its multiplication. At present the pest is reported 
from southern and central California. 

—38— 



There is also danger that a new wheat thrips, described in 
the Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. No. 3, or other 
related species, may become very plentiful and widely dif- 
fused, and become first class pests of wheat and other grain 
crops. The species in question, while preferring wheat, can 
readily subsist and reproduce on several strong growing 
grasses. These, indeed, seem to be the original food plants of 
the species, and under primitive conditions the insect seems to 
have been readily kept in check both by parasitic insects and 
a lesser supply of succulent food after midsummer. This 
thrips occurs in all parts of Kansas, and in some adjoining 
territory. There are 4 to o generations a year. 

"Thrips were common ... appearing in swarms on 
young wheat in early March, 1914. By the first of April the 
larvae, now nearly grown, were cutting the shoots severely. 
. . . By the middle of May, wdien the wheat was heading, the 
second brood of larvae readily infested the young heads, feed- 
ing upon the stamens, pollen and pistils, and later attacking 
the integfument of the g-rain ... as soon as volunteer wheat 
pushed up in early September the thrips were found in all 
parts of the field. . . ." (p. 222). 

These insects, if numerous enough, can completely destroy 
a grain field. The official means of control proposed are not 
worth anything; and, if so, there is now the door open for 
their unlimited increase. 

Burning of the stubble is suggested as being of value. 
But the insect is then present in large numbers as pupae in the 
ground, to emerge with the fall rains, similar as does the Hes- 

—39— 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

llllillliiiliilllililL^ 

015 793 684 • 



sian fly, and attack the wheat. Besides, the wheat, for best 
results as to soil conditions and rotation, should have been 
seeded at the close of the preceding winter to clover or grass. 
Also, the insect can feed and breed in the grasses surrounding 
the field. 

Instead of following the Bureau's plan in this and other 
cases by trying to control the insect by producing conditions 
as unfavorable for multiplication as possible by the destruc- 
tion of food plants, it will be found infinitely better to fight 
the insects by the use of a trap patch,, same as described for 
the Hessian fly, and, if necessary, by attacking the hibernated 
adults as they oviposit on th| young wheat in the spring with 
a multiple torch. Such use? of heat is the only contact in- 
secticide cheap enough to be used on a grain or forage crop. 

Upon the issuance of my Circulars No. 155 and 156, Hon. 
Gilbert N. Haugen, Chairman of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, had been asked to guard the interests of the pub- 
lic by having the Department of Agriculture define its position 
in regard to the points at issue. If the Department of Agricul- 
ture made any reply of any kind, I have not heard of it. 





The Reinlein 

Knapsack 
Gasoline Torch. 

PatPnt .Vo. 739,2£l 
Sept. 15, 1903 



-40- 









l^M 



•<;'''C')v«,':),;Wil>4-'^i,-",T|^J'ii"i>' 



^m; 



■^%^vj^. 



^iW:i^^: 



i^jgiiy^t^^^^r 



\(-:^i^j^'- 



>:«;■ i'^ii 



:''&vi';i 



K'.'f^A 



V'' 



"•^^JtV 



» 









J:^ 






'V/^V't; !>; 






m' 



^'0: 



!■ 






i\ 



^■(^.'* 



iM 



:-?i"f^¥'H' 



I 



'M 



1 









^4 



'\'V<; 



* If^ i\^i -'^if;' ■}■*; )!n I5JI-;, T:; 

Sy |ir .#1/ p. W ]A'' I'f ' 



pf^^ ^^*^' n:y 1^^ ;i^; ,:] 



^^\- I 



J'i'a U^ ; "V i ^ '.',14* "U 



